10th anniversary of the flash video, perhaps… I’ve seen someone argue the point that the meme had been around for two years before that, and the phrase is 7 years older (19 total) than that (presumably because the game it’s from is that old..? I’d have to look it up, but I guess that means Zero Wing is from 1992).

I think it’s okay if you’re flip flopping between princess and queen. After all, Nastajia’s parents have been technically missing the whole time, and has truly only been considered Queen in their absence. She’s sort of ‘not princess, not yet a queen.’

I agree with Moiraaa. It really is half a dozen of one, six of the other, a measurement that could be awful interesting if you take baker’s dozens into account. 😉 Seriously though, I’ve never run into an issue where it feels like the wrong thing was used. Of course those who respect her call her queen. Of course those who do not, or you think she just hasn’t earned the rank yet, would call her princess. And of course she would demand to be called queen when someone disrespects her. And of course she would call herself princess when her parents come to the fore of a situation. It all makes sense to me. 🙂

It might simply reflect her… confusion on the point. If her mother is alive (which she believes), her mother is Queen. But she may still claim that title when exercising her authority, if she’s acting on behalf of her kingdom, and thus acting as its queen. Except in this case, where he’s offering her the King and Queen back, so she would not be quite acting as Queen. Sort of.

And people who knew her mother or share her faith that she lives might be more likely to call her Princess, as well. The different titles might be significant, rather than a mark of bad writing. Or at least you can claim that. 😉

Since she is speaking in present tense, with strong conviction behind her words, telling why she is acting on behalf of the kingdom and not herself, I think it would make sense for her to use the stronger of the two terms, queen, to identify herself in this situation, in order to add more weight to her words.

Personally, I’d want to know what her official title was in the absence of her parents. If they haven’t been declared dead, then she ought to be a regent? I’ve read the term “prince regent” in several fantasy novels. Perhaps she’s a princess regent… Kind of a mouthful though. If she’s been crowned queen of the elves, then leaders and important people around Dreamland would most likely refer to her as such in a show of support and solidarity. I don’t think it matters if she herself feels ambivalent about her title. As a ruler, she represents the order and stability her people need to thrive. She seems like the type of personality that would have made a decision and stuck with it by now.
Besides, if Nick calls her princess when no one else does, it portrays his sense of self-righteousness about the actions he’s taken while usurping the throne of Dreamland.

Were she (officially) “Princess Regent”, the usual title would likely be “Regent”, or “Your Grace”, “Your Highness” or whatever it is, depending on the proper honorific in the Elven realm. If she were being referred to as a member of the Royal Family, or by her name, it would be “Princess (Nastajia)”–she probably would want to avoid “claiming” the title of Queen until it is actually bestowed.

Living in a country that has a Queen: Only after coronation is the official title “Queen”. It can even go so far that the mother of the current Queen officially calls herself “Princess” again, and not “Queen-Mother”

For continuity nit-pickers, Nasti can not call herself Queen. For me? For me Nasti is already Queen, although not in official title.

I never felt it as an issue. In some cases I noticed Nic calling her princess but always assumed he was not acknowledging her title. I think it`s all context. Some kings might still be used to calling her princess and might still hold on to the idea that her parents are coming back some day, like the king of Naroobi and Orion.
Grandpa Pistachio seems like a guy who follows rule and etiquette so it fits him to call her queen.
Bognok was still on Nicodemus` side at that time and very angry with her so I think it`s ok there too.
And I figure Alex is still used to calling her princess.

If you hadn`t brought it up I wouldn`t even have thought about it and even if I did, I`d think they had their reasons to do so.

Scott, you always seem to come up with `problems` in your story which I`m sure most of us haven`t even thought about. I think that if something really stands out as odd, your readers will tell you. You write the story, the characters say what you want them to say, I`m sure when you wrote the script you had a gut feeling that made you write either princess, or queen. It`s both ok, she is still young, but she acts like a queen. Her parents are gone for a while, but most people still hope they`ll come back. I think it illustrates the situation they are all in.

Every use of queen or princess made sense to me in the particular contexts. I agree with everyone else’s reasoning, but also notice that she if often called Princess by those who knew her well when she was still princess, and knew her parents personally as well. To them, it is hard to change the habit of calling her princess when it is not a total and formal change.

I remember in “The Princess Bride” book how Princess Buttercup commented after she had said that she was the Queen that she wasn’t technically the queen, but it was more effective and forceful than princess. To me, since her parents are (supposedly) alive (if Nic’s not lying), she would still be technically princess, though acting as queen. Good move Nastajia. That takes guts.

I’m okay with the flip-flopping. But regarding this page, I think it’s only appropriate she calls herself princess, especially when also talking about her parents because it’s a respect thing. In her mind, they are still king and queen no matter what they might have done or what he might have done to them. It’s indicating that THEY raised her to be a princess and as such she is going to kick his ass. Or something like that.

I think it might show that the people aren’t sure where she stands. Are her parents considered out of the picture permanently? Are they coming back? How much authority does she have? What does she feel like her role is? No one really knows.

I always got a different connotation out of the Queen/Princess title. Nastajia calls herself Queen for state matters (and others do, too) but she still privately and with those close to her calls herself Princess to remind herself of her quest to find her parents and not usurp their proper place as King and Queen. So she sees herself as a Steward for the proper rulers. Think Denethor!….Actually, maybe that’s not the best image…

As for Alex, do you really think he could learn to call her anything but Princess? And story-wise, the readers expect she can transition from Princess to Queen only when she and Alex get hitched.

Agreed with those above. Pessimists, her “people”, or if she’s in a pissy mood, will call her Queen. When Nick does it the first time, he emphasizes it since he is in court and must be proper. Those who hold hope or perhaps still see her as a youngster will address her as Princess. Even if those people should have used Queen only out of technicality (all depends upon elf law, I guess), in this particular scene, she would definitely throw away the title of Queen when talking about her parents being alive.

Its an interesting question. The big question you have to answer is whether she’s been formally invested. If not, she’s a princess though she can be acting as the reigning monarch/queen so is called that sometimes. Another way to look at it is, if her parents are found, would they immediately get the throne back or would she have to give up the crown?

Taji should be pretty on top of royal protocol, including titles.
In this particular situation, her role is not simply a princess, but as the active ruler of the Elves, so she should say so. “Regent”, “Executive”, or “Ruler” are all strictly correct, but “Queen” would definitely be better than Princess.
She is saying that right now, *she* is responsible for making executive decisions for all Elves. She has an unshakeable obligation to make decisions as the Ruler of the Kingdom, not as her parents’ daughter.

Maybe this?

I…
*I* am the ruler of the Elves until my parents return.
It is my *duty* to place the safety and welfare of my kingdom above *all* else, even my parents’ lives.
They would *expect* and *desire* no less from their daughter and regent.

…So go take a long walk off a short pier, you nasty old lizard! (Well, maybe not that.)

About the previous flipflops, I think it’s reasonable in the given situations. Her official title is Princess, but she’s acting as Queen. And you can say anything to a Pirate.

Another thing to take into account is the intention of the person when they say it to her. Far as I can tell, most of the other leaders who call her princess seem to have some sort of previous friendly relationship with her and while they are calling her by a station of high regard, it is also a sign of familiarity and endearment. When Bognok calls her princess he could be using it more in the fashion you have Nicodemus use it, as a form of derision, but with less malice and more of how Bognok tries to observe tradition. When Pistachio insists on her being addressed as a queen, he wants to make sure that she is treated with the respect she deserves. In conjunction with what a lot of others have posted about holding out hope for her parents and her own mixed feelings of identity, I would say that you are fine 🙂 (BTW first time posting and I love the story you have created)

I think “Queen” is used when she’s substituting for her parents and assuming absolute rule over her kingdom… “Princess” is used by Nicodemus as a belittling term to deny her that power (asserting his own?) and, from what I see, here she herself uses it as a means to pay respect to her parents, who she is now certain are alive. I think “Queen” just serves a functionality rather than a pride that would normally come with the title, because she wouldn’t want to steal that from her parents. Still, she’s bravely leading her people… so while doing the job, she assumes the title.

Hey, that’s an Elven Kingdom in Dreamland. She might just as well keep being a Princess of Elves until her rightful heir inherits the title, whether she’s Queen or not. Or something. If you need details, ask Mr. Scott C. Sava, that’s the only expert so far as the woken up Earthlings are concerned. 🙂

IMO, she’s calling herself the Princess right now because she hopes her parents are still alive. I think it’s okay to change between the two titles depending on the situation. People who were friendly with her parents call her the Princess, while those who don’t know them well, or need show respect in their absence call her Queen.

So I think it’s fitting that she’s referring to herself as the Princess, even more so because the King and Queen are being talked about right now.

Personally, I don’t mind either that she’s sometimes called queen, sometimes princess – but oddly enough I staggered over her calling herself princess today (even before I read your post about it) – possibly because she referred to herself as queen before. I don’t think that makes you a bad writer (the thought alone is silly) – it makes perfect sense to let her be called princess by people who either want to insult her, or are somewhat father figures (the king of the merpeople would have been another candidate to call her princess – just out of old habit, probably). It’s difficult, since she is neither or both, as you said.

I think it makes sense for the people who were friends/trusted allies of Nastajia’s parents to call her princess. (So mermaid king, dwarf king,) Because they all remember when Nastajia was younger and how she was a princess.

As for Nic..
If Nastajia happens to be in his throne room on a diplomatic visit, or some other such ceramonial thing, queen makes sense. I do agree with you on the princess thing though with him. I think 9/10 times he should call her princess. (Just like If I were royalty, in public someone who is not fond of me might call me queen chatterbaby, but behind closed doors other words might be said)

I see her being called princess (even though she is most obviously queen right now) as sort of a psychological thing. Is she afraid of losing what little child hood she was able to keep at the pre-mature loss of her parents?

I think “Princess” is coming EITHER from those who belittle her, or who simply still think of her as the Princess. She has not, in fact, had an official crowning as the Queen, so it’s also possible that while legally she’s the queen, technically she isn’t until she undergoes some ceremony passing the power of her parents to her directly.

I think you have your inequality sign reversed, but I get your point. I have long hair myself; when I put it up in a pony tail, it hangs to a point roughly between my shoulder blades, but when it’s down it hangs most of the way down my back, and can just touch the hem of my pants if I tilt my head back.

Still, this has never detracted from the story for me, so I mostly ignore it.

When she needs the authority, she is the Queen. When someone views her as a daughter rather than the Queen or she doesn’t want to assert her royal authority, she is the Princess. When she is speaking as the loving daughter of her parents, the King and Queen, she is the Princess. Sounds all good to me.

I think its okay to use princess in this context, given they were just talking about her parents. In another context where their names were not involved, Queen might make equal sense. Someone older might see her age and think princess too.

Well, you can rationalize this in that Nastajia probably thought her parents were dead at the beginning of the story, but now that Nicodemus apparently left them alive, she thinks that she won’t have to be acting queen much longer.

It is proper for others to refer to her at “Queen” since she is in fact acting in the absence of her parents and, it is proper for her to refer to herself as “Princiess” since she has hopes of finding her parents still alive.

Nastajia’s title is “Princess of the Elves” until her parents, the “King and the Queen of the Elves”, are officialy declared dead or missing (maybe Missing In Action).
After the above official declaration and having in mind the “rules of the kingdom” Nastajia may have the title “Queen of the Elves”.

She’s been a princess. That’s what she was when Alex knew her best. And there’s something to be said for the title of “elven princess.” She can still be strong, still be a leader, still be important. (Though, yes, to Nicodemus, so obsessed with power and titles, it would seem to belittle her to some degree, and, at the same time, to remind her anew of the loss of her parents.)

On the other hand, her parents have been missing for a long time. She’s been acting as queen. I get the impression that’s never been made official (and today’s page seems to confirm that), but there would still be those who would think of her as queen. I could even see her taking up that mantle. Trying out the title, using it to consolidate her power, confirm her authority, and help motivate her subjects.

From here out, though, I think it should be princess. She’s heard that her parents are still alive, and she’s claimed “princess” as a title of strength. If this battle ends in victory, there will be no need to bolster her authority by naming herself queen. And, in fact, she’ll want her people to call her princess to remind them that her parents are still out there, taken by the usurper.

I honestly always figured Nastajia used the title of Queen purely because of the pressure to rule she felt in her parents absence. As time has gone on, and with Alex’s help (knowingly or unknowingly) she’s relaxed a little, and reverted to her original (and more comfortable) role as Princess. She will be Queen, someday, someday soon, perhaps, but truly, she is now a Princess, a Warrior Princess, at that, with the authority and intelligence of a future Queen.

Also, her speech here was perfect, absolutely what I would expect her to say. 🙂

“But I’ve used it so much throughout. I think it just sounds bipolar at this point.”

Bipolar disorder is an actual illness which many people struggle with and must take daily, poisonous medication to manage — please don’t use it as a casual mocking slur. Doing that minimizes and mocks their daily fight against a very dangerous illness — and I don’t think that’s your intent. So I’d love it if you’d please change your wording!

Thanks for your prompt reply. Please understand that — and I think this is clear if you reread my comment — I was not implying that you had intentionally mocked the illness. I was stating that your use of the word “bipolar” reflects a misunderstanding as to the reality of this illness. Using “bipolar” to describe “someone who changes their mind a lot” is only accurate in the way that using “Greyhound” would be an accurate word to use to describe the vehicle I got in to drive to work today. Since I don’t take a bus, but instead drove my own sedan into work, calling it a Greyhound is misinformative. My intention was not to shame you, but to educate you — your use of the word “bipolar,” while benignly intended, was not how bipolar disorder works. I wouldn’t want a casual reader to think that people with bipolar disorder are like this. Using “bipolar” to mean “irrational,” “illogical,” or “inconsistent/unreliable” sends the message that people who have bipolar disorder are uniformly irrational, illogical, and unreliable — and using it as an adjective treats the illness as a personality trait rather than an illness — implying that a person who doesn’t have bipolar disorder can “act bipolar.” What this does is subconsciously assert that acting or not acting bipolarly is a decision of personal discipline, as though people diagnosed with bipolar disorder just aren’t trying hard enough to see reason.

Please, please, I’m just asking for you to exercise some compassion towards others who suffer from an illness which society often treats as imaginary or attention-seeking, and take three or four seconds out of your day to edit your post to pick a different word. I asked only for an incredibly minor act of compassion. I understand that you meant no ill — I never, ever doubted it. I only asked for you to please change a word. If it means nothing to you either way, and it means a great deal to me, won’t you please consider it?

I think you will find that if you go through life looking for things other people say or write that offend you, and them call them on it and ask them to change, you will only succeed in continually making yourself and others more miserable. If you can find the strength to toughen your skin, and shrug off what people say instead, you and those around you will lead a happier life.

After all, in every given sentence – in almost any word – there is something that someone will find offensive. For example, I could look at your screen name and say, “well, I’m Catholic, and that sounds an awful lot like ‘Children’s Mass’; I find your use of that term sacrilegious and offensive.” But in saying something like that, I believe I would be betraying the spirit of my beliefs.

I’m not saying that EXTREMELY offensive terms should be ignored, by any means. I’m just saying that I think we will all be happier and healthier if we just cut each other some slack. After all, look at the alternative: eventually, there won’t be any words left without “offensive” connotation, and people won’t talk to each other at all – outside of unmoderated Internet forums, of course.

First off, I assure you, my skin is quite thick — and seeing someone use a term in an uninformed way, as was the case here, doesn’t cause me offense or pain! But as someone for whom making the world a more accessible place for everyone is important, seeing someone use a term in an uninformed way does make me want to inform them as to the word they just used and what it means, so that they don’t cause someone else pain later down the road and say, “shoot, if only someone had told me earlier on that I was saying something I didn’t mean to, I’d have stopped!” I’m putting across the information in the hopes it’ll help someone be more sensitive to not using unintentionally ableist terms.

Childermass, or Holy Innocents’ Day, is a Christian Feast Day commemorating the first Christian martyrs — but in this case, it’s also the name of a character from Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, which is what I reference in my use of it. (It’s also the surname of a character in several books by John Bellairs.) If you did find it sacriligeous and offensive, and you said this to me, then I’d absolutely be sensitive to using it in the future, and suggest that you further your concern to Susanna Clarke herself, as she was the one responsible for the appropriation. It really doesn’t ruin my day to take a moment to take someone else’s feelings into consideration — but it might ruin someone else’s day if I refuse to just because I take umbrage at being asked to.

I’m really uncomfortable, actually, with your assertion that EXTREMELY offensive terms should still be worth caring about, but not the ones that are only KIND of offensive. First, this is kind of a problem because it presumes you can tell an oppressed group what they should or shouldn’t find offensive? Which is deeply inappropriate across the board, regardless of which axis of oppression you’re addressing. Second, because you’ve inherently just decided that it’s totally okay to be “kind of offensive” (with offensiveness levels as decreed by you). Why is it okay to be kind of offensive? Because being sensitive to disabilities is a lot of work? Would it still only be “kind of offensive” if we were talking about an illness which affected the liver or the heart instead of the brain? If someone said, “wow, I was totally leukemic into the toilet all weekend, had to take Pepto Bismol,” and someone else said, “Uh, leukemia kills people, you don’t just take a pepto and that isn’t funny,” would that be worth asking someone to choose another adjective for? Or would it still only be kind of offensive? What kind of ableist reference would I have to make before you’d find it extremely offensive?

I did, as you suggest I do, cut Scott some slack. I cut him every kind of slack. I meant nothing but kind and polite information in my request, so he’d understand why I — some stranger on the internet — was requesting he change the word he’d used. I presumed, unequivocally, that he had used the term entirely innocent of the notion that this could be hurtful to someone. Particularly with this being such a heart-warming and family-friendly comic, it seemed straightforward to me that he’d want to make it a place where all people feel “at home.” I’m not a troll, and neither are you, and we seem to be communicating just fine!

It hurts that in such a friendly, big-hearted place as Dreamland, I’m getting the “why don’t you just toughen up/you’re just trying to be offended” derailing tactic. Please google “derailing for dummies” for more detail if you’re so inclined.

I’ve been at that for almost 40 years already. Since before BD was given its current politically correct name, in fact. And if I learned one thing in the process, it’s this: you don’t get to feel better by making others feel worse. The reverse, however, often works. Guess it’s no coincidence so many people I know who suffer regular depressions became entertainers or some such.

It’s not a war that could be won by attacking somebody else. Or having somebody else attack somebody else on your behalf.

Now, Scott’s making everybody’s life brighter. Maybe just a bit, but every bright spot counts when you’re drowning in the darkness. Might help someone to reduce one’s dose of poisons. Might just save somebody’s life some day, who knows. He doesn’t really know what it’s like? That’s perfectly all right in my book. Nobody deserves to.

I think it’s awesome that Dreamland is a bright spot in your life. I’d love to see it be that kind of place for everyone! I’m really sorry that my request and my attempt to educate sounded like I was deliberately trying to attack someone. That was certainly never my intent. Scott seems like a very nice person, and has always seemed to care about making this a friendly place. You do too.

I’ve never expected that I could make myself feel better by making someone else feel worse — and I actually don’t think Scott ought to “feel worse” for having innocently misused a term that’s easily corrected! But I do know that for some people with bipolar disorder — particularly the case for teens who may not be getting support from their parents, who are surrounded by people who believe mental illnesses are all in your head and don’t require sympathy or medical treatment, who are told to just tough it out, or are treated as frivolous or attention-seeking, a single misused word, however innocent, CAN send them into a manic-depressive cycle.

Scott seems like a really caring individual. Please know that my request was in no way meant to alter that perception — I was just hoping for him to alter a word that might cause pain for some people who see places like Dreamland as a haven from other parts of the world that are insensitive to their struggles.

First, I can assure you, having met Scott in person at San Diego Comic-Con a couple years ago, you will never meet a nicer, more genuine guy full of positive intent and love of life.

I have to say that when I first read his “bipolar” comment, the idea of it being associated with bipolar disorder never occured to me. Given the context of his comment, I actually at first took it to be used as a standalone word which can mean “having two distinct opposing views” kind of like whether someone should be referred to as queen or princess. While you claim to have a thick skin, it would seem that your initial assumption to the intent shows otherwise. Someone with a thick skin would not automatically jump to the most offensive possible interpretation of a word that, in and of itself, is only half of the misunderstood disorder.

I wonder how, in a world where it is not acceptable to use a single word that could be misinterpreted as an incorrect (and therefore potentially offensive) use of a phrase that word is part of, how are we expected to communicate as a people?

While your intentions may be honorable, please make sure you are correct about your criticism of a word’s use before asking others to censor themselves.

“While you claim to have a thick skin, it would seem that your initial assumption to the intent shows otherwise. Someone with a thick skin would not automatically jump to the most offensive possible interpretation of a word that, in and of itself, is only half of the misunderstood disorder.”

I really think you’ve misunderstood my posts! From my first post:
“Doing that minimizes and mocks their daily fight against a very dangerous illness — and I don’t think that’s your intent.”

To my second:
“Please understand that — and I think this is clear if you reread my comment — I was not implying that you had intentionally mocked the illness.”

To my third:
“and seeing someone use a term in an uninformed way, as was the case here, doesn’t cause me offense or pain!
[…]
I’m putting across the information in the hopes it’ll help someone be more sensitive to not using unintentionally ableist terms.
[…]
I presumed, unequivocally, that he had used the term entirely innocent of the notion that this could be hurtful to someone.”

To my fourth:

“That was certainly never my intent. Scott seems like a very nice person, and has always seemed to care about making this a friendly place.
[…]
I actually don’t think Scott ought to “feel worse” for having innocently misused a term that’s easily corrected!
[…]
Scott seems like a really caring individual. Please know that my request was in no way meant to alter that perception”

I’ve actually been very unequivocal in making sure to address my belief that I do not believe Scott had a single iota of ill intent whatsoever when he used the word “bipolar,” because it’s VERY important to me to make it clear that this is in no way meant to be character-assassination. I was not trying to call someone my enemy — I was making a request for them to please be my ally. Is it really not coming across? 🙁 I promise you, utterly sincerely, I’ve been trying to communicate my belief in Scott’s lack of ill intent all along.

“Someone with a thick skin would not automatically jump to the most offensive possible interpretation of a word that, in and of itself, is only half of the misunderstood disorder.”

Please understand that it’s not because it’s the “most offensive” interpretation of the word that I felt it was a valid interpretation for someone to take. It’s because it’s inherently the most common and the most applicable one. The adjective “bipolar” has four definitions in the Merriam-Webster dictionary — the most applicable one to a description of a person’s behavior is the one that describes behavior: “being, characteristic of, or affected with a bipolar disorder.” Moreover, of the 25 definitions of “bipolar” on urban dictionary — some of which are surprisingly sensitive, and others which are so offensive that they neatly illustrate how hurtful the stereotypes of the word “bipolar” can be — not one has to do with any definition of bipolar other than “having [stereotyped] bipolar disorder.” I’m clearly not alone in finding this to be the prevailing common usage of the word.

“I wonder how, in a world where it is not acceptable to use a single word that could be misinterpreted as an incorrect […] use of a phrase that word is part of, how are we expected to communicate as a people?”

Your argument’s a bit of a straw man here — as there are any number of easily handy synonyms that do communicate quite effectively. “Inconsistent,” “vacillating,” and “whimsical” all fit the bill quite clearly, for a start.

“While your intentions may be honorable, please make sure you are correct about your criticism of a word’s use before asking others to censor themselves.”

This is, tragically, a much bigger (and more popular!) straw man. First, I was at no time incorrect about the word’s usage, nor in fact did I ever intimate that I believed the pejorative use of the word was the one Scott intended to convey. I’ve asserted just the opposite time and again, and in no uncertain terms. But more critically, suggesting that I’m “censoring” anyone with my request is casting me as some kind of “thought police.” As wikipedia could tell you, “Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.” Censorship might be an appropriate description if I were, say, the government, or in any other way had any power to actually stop Scott from using the word “bipolar,” or actually silenced him from saying it. A person cannot “censor themselves” — that’s called exercising discretion, and there’s nothing evil or oppressive in the mere act of *asking* someone to do so. Further, since this was a blog comment and not, say, a comic page, this hardly represents one person asking another to Compromise Their Artistic Vision. Again, this is one human being asking another to consider replacing a word that hurt their feelings with an equivalent word that didn’t. It’s a gesture of good faith toward a concerned reader that I hope Scott will have the heart to oblige.

I realize everything’s wrapped up, and I’m not trying to start anything back up… I just wanted to point out that the term bipolar was in the English language long before it was coined as a disorder. It simply means (as per the first entry in Merriam-Webster) “having or marked by two mutually repellent forces or diametrically opposed natures or views.” Bipolar is a very effective descriptor, and it also just happened to be a fairly adequate term to describe the disorder. The word is common in use in many fields, for instance it’s used to describe molecular properties all the time.

Personally, I didn’t know the term offended people. I’ll also have to take this into consideration. Too, I it’s silly that people on both sides jumped the gun. But it is the internet after all and it can be hard to communicate properly in text. Either way, now I’ve learned something.

Hi Childermass…
Thank you for being so understanding in your replies.
Both understanding and polite.

Thank you.

You are also too kind in your description of me. Thank you.
🙂

As for the bipolar thing. I think it’s great when people notify me of something that might be perceived as hurtful or offensive.

I then take a long hard look at it and decide if it’s something I should change.

I’ve been told Nastajia’s costume is offensive. It’s too revealing.
I’ve also been told that my story is too violent for younger ones.

I consider myself a very conservative person. And while I don’t want to offend anyone…ever. I know that I WILL offend people.

Unfortunately…it’s inevitable.

Someone will always find offense to something someone else does. No matter how innocent it is.

Now. That being said. I think most of the fans (as well as myself) make knee-jerk reactions to crits like yours because of the “overly sensitive” readers we’ve encountered (and there haven’t been many…really).

What you brought up is a perfectly reasonable thing. And definitely worth me looking into.

I decided that the use (as I understand it now) isn’t offensive to the majority. But to be perfectly honest…I could easily change my mind if it became an issue later on.

You learn. Society learns. And we adapt.

I hope you take this as an apology if I and others came across overly defensive.
Again. It’s a knee-jerk reaction. And while I’m not about to stop using the word bipolar to describe feeling like I can’t make up my mind just yet. I will consider another word for future use.

Thank you so much for considering my point of view and for your understanding. Knowing that you’ll consider a different word in the future really does mean a great deal. That’s all I ask, that you keep it in mind — thank you for a cool-headed and positive encounter! I’ll look back on my interaction with you as open-minded. Speaks really highly of you as a professional.

I can appreciate the strain of an audience that asks a great deal. I don’t mean to add to that — for example, while adding vision-impaired accessibility features to the Dreamland Chronicles would open up Dreamland to people using screen-readers to access the internet, I know that can be cost-prohibitive for one-man enterprises like an online comic. I think you’ve done well with trying to be sensitive about balancing the age-appropriateness of the violence in the comic with the need to tell a believable story, and often these things are questions of storytelling. I definitely appreciate the difficulty. I look forward, as always, to tomorrow’s page. Thank you!

As for the “flip-flopping”…I thought it made sense since she’s only the Queen in absentia, and there’s never been any clarity on whether or not her parents are actually dead. In my eyes, she’s still a princess until we know for sure that her parents are gone, but using the title Queen from time to time is appropriate when she’s asserting authority or being acknowledged as the primary official (for now) of her kingdom.

I think she is still a bit confused as to what her role in this really is. Also the hope that her parents are still alive. There are times she has to act like the queen, but she is not the queen until she is coronated. Other monarchs calling her princess is correct. Nick calling her queen is, in my mind, an insult. Especially considering his role in all of this.

Had you not pointed it out if anyone had noticed you could have claimed that anyone who knew her and her parents are calling her princess, everyone else is calling her queen. She herself is flip-flopping depending on who she’s talking to and her mood. Nick is flip-flopping depending on just what mood he wants her in. Meaning that the queen/princess thing isn’t a mistake, but an intentional peek into the minds your your characters.

I don’t have a problem with the flip flopping, Scott. It shows the attitude of the character’s relationship with each other. Sure, when Nic is being patronizing, he’s going to call her princess. When he’s trying to accuse her, he’ll probably call her Queen. And of course even after she’s Queen, she’ll always be a Princess in Alex’s eyes.

depends on who is talking and how they see her. Nic would use the term princess because it is more child-like, plus he is indicating (whether consciously or unconsciously) that her parents are still alive. allies to the elves would say queen, foes would probably not. She is the Queen now, as i think she should say on this page.

I don’t know, I think the transition from Queen or Princess is great. It feels like whenever people call her Princess, it’s a show of their support that her mother and father are still alive. That’s how I took it when she said she was the Princess on this page, at least.

Perhaps everyone (besides Nick) who calls her a princess is doing so out of affection for her, except Bognok in that one page. He didn’t have much respect for her at the time so I’m sure that was demeaning of him. Nastajia switching from insisting she is queen to saying she is a princess (especially in front of a villain like Nick) makes me think that she’s finally comes to grips with the fact that until she knows the absolute truth of what happens to her parents, she is a princess and she will embrace it and not allow Nick to try and demean her, denying him a weapon in his arsenal.

I agree with everyone else that so far I have never been bothered by the use of Queen/Princess. As everyone said, it seems the term Queen is used when she needs to assert her authority, otherwise she prefers Princess to acknowledge the hope that her parents are still alive. And occasionally, people like Nic use Princess to undermine her authority. All makes perfect sense =)

In this case, "Queen" may be appropriate as she is asserting authority. At same time, the discussion is surrounding the well-being of her parents, so using Queen would be like saying "they're dead as far as I'm concerned," which isn't what she meant. So "Princess" is the a good choice here.

Maybe have her hesitate a bit before deciding to call herself Princess instead of Queen? Or maybe even have her blurt out Queen, before changing to Princess? Though she already hesitated at the "I…" and we don't want her sounding too unsure here. And going from Queen to Princess, plus the hesitation, would not give a very good impression of authority. If anything, maybe more like blurt out Princess first, as her thoughts are still on her parents at first, then change to Queen as her conviction to put her people first grows.

Or do what TekServer says: “I am the Princess, and acting Queen, of the Elves.”

I’m with Alexandra on this one – Queen Regent. Except, like her parents, she is wandering all over Dreamland, and not ruling her people. The elven rulers in Dreamland are pretty irresponsible, it seems to me, so I think Nicodemus made a pretty good gamble offering to trade.

hehehehe!! if you put it that way~ XD though technically she’s still doing “state business” by hunting down the tablets, uncovering Nic’s problems, and rallying all of dreamland…. But you’re right, it sounds like more the job of a random hero (ie. Alex’s job) than the job of the acting Queen of the elves. Like she can help Alex here and there, but you’d think Alex should do most of the hard work while Nastajia should stay w/ her people more often. Unless the elves all know about this and agrees~

Haha, but your comment of “The elven rulers in Dreamland are pretty irresponsible, it seems to me” cracks me up XD

It all depends. In many traditions, elves are rather free-spirited and independent, and don’t need a lot of governance. That would mean their rulers don’t need to be around a lot.

In a real-world example, monasteries, especially most that follow the Benedictine Rule, are quite independent. We have congregations with presidents–but it’s nowhere near a full-time job, unlike many religious order provincials. We also have an Abbot Primate, the titular head of the order (with some 20 congregations of men), but he really has little power–besides running San’ Anselmo, a house of study and college in Rome, he mostly wanders the world visiting other abbeys–sort of an ambassador from us to us. Oh, and he represents us in Rome to the Vatican bureaucracy–but even there each congregation has its own representative. So, in a sense, he’s head of everything, but doesn’t really have all that much to do.

In the real world you generally have one ‘head of state’, one monarch, plus their spouse. Often in Europe the consort if the Queen is the head of state to avoid confusion. They are ‘Your Majesty’, below that are their children, you Highness.

But the key thing is in RL, if you are the king or queen, it doesn’t matter if your parents are alive, you are still the king or queen. Sometimes an older monarch will retire, to help ensure a smooth transition or just to relax.

That’s the only reason it would be important to be consistent. If she has been made the actual Queen and undergone a coronation, that’s it. Now she might be the regent for the monarchs. That would be her ruling, but still under their authority, not her own. That again is the real world. There can only be one head of state. Perhaps the elven court has different terminology.

Personally, if you want to avoid confusion, going with something akin to modern monarchies makes sense. Thus if a) they assume the king and queen are still alive, and b) the Princess wants them to rule if they return.. then perhaps make her a regent, and remain a Princess. It also gives you leeway to have a joint coronation/wedding in ceremony in the future.. 😛

Summary: There is only one ‘head of state’. That is the king or queen. Their spouse is a monarch also, but not the head of state. If you want to call her Queen, then by RL standards, she’s been formally invested as the new head of state in place of whichever of her parents was prior. Years of absence seems a good reason for the elves to need a new ruler and make her queen, but for story reasons she could certainly remain a princess. So its up to you, and that’s only if you want to go by Euro style monarchy examples.

I agree with Shazaam’s point. Dreamland doesn’t have to follow our conventional ideas about monarchies…and bmonk’s comment below is valid as well. “King of kings” is a legitimate idea. Plus you’ve also got existing references in literature to having a “High King” who is ruler over various lower kings. *shrugs* I think you’re fine. 🙂

Well..Just ask. I live in a monarchy. It’s part of our daily life and part of our political spectrum.
In our Highschools, there is a class called “Maatschappij leer”(Don’t try to pronounce that..:lol: ) where the whole workings of a liberal-Democracy under a monarch is thoroughly explained.

Many of us have long since given up on figuring out the politics across the pond. Heck, some of us have given up on figuring out the politics here in the US of A. (Part of the reason we read webcomics to “get away from it all” … )

Remember “King of Kings” used, first by the Assyrians and then (most famously) by the Persian Shahs. It was no hyperbole–the King of Assyria (or Persia) had vassals who were also titled “king” (or the local equivalent), so that, as their king, he was the “King of Kings”.

The Roman Emperor also had vassal kings, such as in Mauritania, Armenia, Judea, and quite a few other small monarchies over the years. In more modern times, weren’t there several kings in the late Holy Roman Empire or the German Empire–the King of Bavaria comes to mind, as well as the “King in Prussia”.

(Actually, that’s not so bad; I once had the honor of being part of an eight part, 150-member chorus, accompanied by a full symphony orchestra, to sing the Hallelujah Chorus and the Battle Hymn of the Republic in a theater with nearly perfect acoustics. If you have any appreciation for such things, you know that that is an eminently unforgettable event!)

Nastajia could be a princess of dreamland and queen of the elves at the same time. Nicholals II Romanov had these titles:

-Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias;
-Tsar of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland, Siberia, the Tauric Chersonese and Georgia;
-Lord of Pskov;
-Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland;
-Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogatia, Belostok, Karelia, Tver, Yugria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria and other lands;
-Lord and Grand Prince of Nizhnyi Novgorod and Chernigov;
-Ruler of Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl’, Belo-Ozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl, and all the Northern Lands;
-Lord and Sovereign of th iverian, Kartalinian and Karbadinian lands and of the Armenian Provinces;
-Hereditary Lord and Suzerain of the Circassian Princes and Highland Princes and others;
-Lord of Turkestan;
-Heir to the throne of Norway;
-Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, the Dithmarschen and Oldenburg.

So flopping between calling Nicholas II duke, prince, lord, suzerain, and/or autocrat would be appropriate depending on the location of your story and/or the nationality of the person speaking. “Comrade Romanov” or “Herr Romanov” would have been good choices if the goal was to piss him off.

FYI my choice of username is not intended to insult psychopaths or avians! {8>~

So long as the King and Queen’s deaths weren’t acknowledged, I think that’d mean she remains princess (she’d need to be coronated to be officially queen, I think?), but would also be the acting regent, which would give her all the powers of being the king or queen without the title…

…I think. To be honest, my knowledge of the structure of monarchies is a bit rusty too.

that’s telling him nast! 🙂
i think you stick with princess cos she is not technically a queen yet, even though her parents are missing they still the true rulers of her kingdom and only her parents can give here the right to be the new queen. unless her parents are already dead, then she automatically becomes the new queen. but that not been proven yet, so she is still a princess.

Hmm, I think at this point Nicodemus has already surrendered but is just sticking around to test Alex and Nastajia to see if they can pass the King/Queen test.
I don’t think the title-switching is bad writing. As long as you keep which characters call her what consistent, it should be fine.

I read through the linked princess vs queen examples, and I noticed a few patterns:
1) Allies with authority who are older than her tend to address her as “princess” (rather like they still remember when she was just a little girl)
2) Allies not in authority seem to also favor “princess” … probably the “still holding out hope” thing
3) Her subjects seem to call her “queen,” but that’s likely a matter of her being regent. It is better to speak with too much honor than too little.
4) When she speaks “from the throne” so to speak, or is addressing enemies, of course she would want to have her words carry as much weight as possible, so she would go with “queen”
5) Nicodemus calls her by both…
a) “Princess” when he’s trying to remind her that as far as he is concerned, the kingdom of the elves is not sovereign [i.e. it falls under his rule, rather than the rulers being the highest authority]… or belittle her
b) I take his uses of “queen” as rather sarcastic and patronizing.

None of this is contradictory.

The topic of her being a regent (or rather Princess Regent) has been dealt with in lots of detail, so I won’t rehash that. Now, I will note that as one who has the title of “[crown] princess,” “regent” is a bit of a rank drop. It would have to be something like “[Crown] Princess-Regent” if “regent” were used (seeing as crown princes and crown princesses are heirs to the throne, people are flipping to “queen”).

More appropriate for the present circumstances (an uncoroneted princess ruling as queen due to her parents possibly being dead, and definitely missing) is “Princess Regnant” – a princess who is ruling by her own authority so to speak (compare “Queen Regnant” which is a queen who is ruler of her country rather than just wife of the king).

Just tossing it out there but perhaps she addresses herself as Princess to those who actually know her parents and Queen to those who would not have or would have assumed she has already ascended to the elven thrown? BTW GO NAJ! freekin awesome 😀

Leave it flip-floppy, in my opinion. It seems like the “Princess” is generally being used in a more familiar fashion, whereas “Queen” is only used when either she or someone else is asserting her power.

If you look, most of the “Queen” references you’ve listed are saying “Queen of the Elves” or “a queen.” It seems more cold and detached.

Besides, the hero falls in love with the beautiful princess, not the queen.